The Government Paid $4.5 Billion to Feds Who Took the DRP, One Estimate Shows

Why It Matters

The findings highlight a massive fiscal burden from a voluntary separation scheme that may outweigh its projected savings, raising questions about the efficiency of current federal workforce reforms.

Key Takeaways

• DRP cost $4.5 billion for paid leave without work
• 137,000 federal workers entered DRP, average 8.7 weeks paid
• Total estimated workforce policy costs approach $71 billion
• OPM defends DRP, claiming $20 billion annual savings
• Partnership warns unquantified downstream costs of workforce churn

Pulse Analysis

The Deferred Resignation Program, launched in 2025, offered eligible federal employees a lump‑sum severance in exchange for several weeks of paid administrative leave. While the initiative was marketed as a humane, voluntary path to accelerate workforce turnover, the Partnership’s data shows 137,000 participants collectively drew about $4.5 billion in wages and benefits. The average participant received eight weeks of pay, but the program’s design allowed some to collect up to 30 weeks, inflating the cost base beyond initial projections.

Beyond the DRP, the report aggregates other workforce actions—probationary employee leaves, court‑mandated re‑hires, and reduction‑in‑force severance packages—bringing the total estimated outlay to nearly $71 billion over 15 months. Critics argue that these figures dwarf the administration’s claim that the DRP will generate $20 billion in annual savings. The discrepancy underscores a broader tension: aggressive downsizing can create hidden expenses, from legal challenges to the administrative overhead of rehiring and severance, that erode any headline‑level efficiencies.

Looking ahead, the fiscal 2027 budget reinforces the administration’s push to shrink the federal workforce and trim real‑estate holdings. However, the Partnership’s analysis suggests that without a more nuanced approach—balancing voluntary exits with realistic cost accounting—the government may continue to fund costly transition periods without realizing the promised taxpayer savings. Policymakers will need to weigh the immediate fiscal hit against long‑term productivity gains, ensuring that workforce reforms do not simply shift expenses from one line item to another.